Comments on: Good Night, and Good Luck

By: zbtirrell

zbtirrell — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:01:47 +0000

Yeah, but Warner Indpendent, like Fox Searchlight pictures, takes small budget films without all the strings of a blockbuster attached, allows it to be greenlit and does some distribution.

These are are not mainstream movies. They aren’t required to pass some litmus test of poularity. Find me a film from Sundance that doesn’t end up at one of the “independednt” pictures studios.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:27:12 +0000

So what makes an independent studio? I always thought it was independence; not being owned by a major.
Top 25 Media Groups:
“Among AOL/Time Warner’s vast holdings are HBO and Cinemax, Court TV, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Cartoon Network, Turner Classic Movies, CNN, Warner Bros. Pictures, New Line Cinema and sports teams the Atlanta Braves, Atlanta Hawks, and the Atlanta Thrashers.”
It’s media consolidation man.

By: NoSheep! » Edward R Murrows

NoSheep! » Edward R Murrows — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 02:05:53 +0000

[...] I finally got out to see Good Night, and Good Luck in Concord. It was just as great as I had hoped. George Clooney co-wrote and directed this film which truly transported me to the 1950’s. The mix of new black and white film with the old news footage was spectacular. This was especially effective since anyone playing McCarthy would have come off over the top, insane, and poorly done. The senator was not believable in real life, how could any actor accomplish such a feat? [...]

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:12:11 +0000

I saw this at the Landmark Embassy 6 in Waltham, cinema 5 (the big house :) – Very nice theater, and walking distance for me.

This is being distributed by Warner Independent Pictures, a seperate company from Warner Brothers (though owned by them) which handles independent films. No more dubious than many other indy lables, like Fox Searchlight, Focus Features, Sony Classics, etc all of which are owned by major studios.

By: Mike D

Mike D — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:30:11 +0000

Sounds like a compelling topic. It’s dubious whether Warner Brothers, one of the major studios, can slap the word “independent” onto a project and make it so. Still, it’s encouraging to see something other than vapid rehashes of novels, TV shows, old movies, and comic books. I don’t live near any theatres and I don’t own a TV or DVD player, but I might actually see this.

By: zbtirrell

zbtirrell — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:31:13 +0000

Where did you see it? I'm planning on going to Boston for the Ansel Adams exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts later in the month. This may be an opportunity for me to catch it.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:11:05 +0000

This is an outstanding movie, and also a must see in theatres; not only is it in black and white, but the prints are all on black and white film stock. This is uncommon at best nowadays, and the results are nothing short of stunning. I’d suggest the dvd will pale in comparison, if there’s any movie worth driving a distance for this is it. This is a pretty rare opportunity, as it will probably be a while before another black and white movie comes along, let alone one on black and white film, let alone a movie this good that also has great cinematography.